Skip to main content

Reflections on the Significance of Misrepresenting Preferences

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((TCCI,volume 9760))

Abstract

This paper deals with the concept of manipulation, understood as preference misrepresentation, in the light of the main theoretical results focusing on their practical significance. It also reviews some indices measuring the degree of manipulability of choice functions. Moreover, the results on complexity of manipulation as well as on safe manipulability are briefly touched upon.

H. Nurmi—The author has greatly benefited from conversations with Stefan Napel during his visit to Public Choice Research Centre of University of Turku and from email exchanges with Alexander Mayer. The suggestions of the three anonymous referees have substantially improved the paper. Despite all these contributions the author is still solely responsible for the remaining errors and weaknesses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Aleskerov, F.T., Karabekian, D., Sanver, M.R., Yakuba, V.: On the degree of manipulability of multi-valued social choice rules. Essays in Honor of Hannu Nurmi. Homo Œconomicus 28, 205–216 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Aleskerov, F.T., Karabekian, D., Sanver, M.R., Yakuba, V.: On the manipulability of voting rules: the case of 4 and 5 alternatives. Math. Soc. Sci. 64, 67–73 (2012)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Aleskerov, F.T., Kurbanov, E.: Degree of manipulability of social choice procedures. In: Alkan, A., Aliprantis, C., Yannelis, N. (eds.) Current Trends in Economics, pp. 13–27. Springer, Berlin (1999)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Bartholdi, J.J., Tovey, C.A., Trick, M.A.: The computational difficulty of manipulating an election. Soc. Choice Welfare 6, 227–241 (1989)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Bartholdi, J.J., Tovey, C.A., Trick, M.A.: Voting schemes for which it can be difficult to tell who won the election. Soc. Choice Welfare 6, 157–165 (1989)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Campbell, D.E., Kelly, J.S.: Anonymous, neutral and strategy-proof rules on the Condorcet domain. Econ. Lett. 128, 79–82 (2015)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Conitzer, V., Walsh, T.: Barriers to manipulation. In: Brandt, F., Conitzer, V., Endriss, U., Lang, J., Procaccia, A.D. (eds.) Handbook of Computational Social Choice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, to appear

    Google Scholar 

  8. Farquharson, R.: Theory of Voting. Blackwell, Oxford (1969)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Feldman, A., Serrano, R.: Welfare Economics and Social Choice Theory, 2nd edn. Springer, New York (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gärdenfors, P.: Manipulation of social choice functions. J. Econ. Theor. 13, 217–228 (1976)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Garey, M.R., Johnson, D.S.: Computers and Intractability. A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco (1979)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Gibbard, A.: Manipulation of voting schemes: a general result. Econometrica 41, 587–601 (1973)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Kelly, J.S.: Almost all social rules are highly manipulable, but a few aren’t. Soc. Choice Welfare 10, 161–175 (1993)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Mayer, A.: Private communication, 11 October 2015

    Google Scholar 

  15. Napel, S.: Private communications, 7–9 October 2015

    Google Scholar 

  16. Nurmi, H.: On taking preferences seriously. In: Anckar, D., Berndtson, E. (eds.) Essays on Democratic Theory. Finnpublishers, Tampere (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Satterthwaite, M.: Strategy-proofness and Arrow’s conditions. J. Econ. Theor. 10, 187–217 (1975)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Slinko, A., White, S.: Is it ever safe to vote strategically? Soc. Choice Welfare 43, 403–427 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Taylor, A.D.: Social Choice and the Mathematics of Manipulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2005)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hannu Nurmi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Nurmi, H. (2016). Reflections on the Significance of Misrepresenting Preferences. In: Nguyen, N., Kowalczyk, R., Mercik, J. (eds) Transactions on Computational Collective Intelligence XXIII. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9760. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-52886-0_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-52886-0_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-52885-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-52886-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics